Re: [wss] wrt Issue 428

[Jeff Hodges <Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz>]

It appears from the draft minutes that issue 428 wasn't discussed on the call. 
This is likely because it is shown as closed (incorrectly, imv) in the Issues 
list, and I unfortunately was distracted (driving; apologies) when we were 
going thru the open Issues post-334.

So, again, issue 428 was closed on the 6-Sep call, with the (incorrect) claim 
that "..there is no concrete proposal", which I pointed out in this message..


[1] Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes 2005-09-06 (with roll call)
     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00055.html


and which I followed up on here..


[2] wrt Issue 428 (was: Re: [wss] [VER 2] OASIS WSS TC Minutes
     2005-09-06(with roll call))
     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00057.html


The gist of Thomas' suggested resolution [3] to 428 is..


   ..[edit lines in SMS Core] 903-904 as follows (removing things in {}
     and adding things in [])...


   "This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for {where to find} a
   security token. If a fragment is specified, then it indicates the local
   ID of the [security] token being referenced. [The URI MUST identify a
   security token.  The URI MUST NOT identify a wsse:SecurityTokenReference
   element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a
   wsse:KeyIdentifier element.]"


..yielding this revised text [4]...

     This optional attribute specifies an abstract URI for a
     security token. If a fragment is specified, then it indicates the local
     ID of the security token being referenced. The URI MUST identify a
     security token.  The URI MUST NOT identify a wsse:SecurityTokenReference
     element, a wsse:Embedded element, a wsse:Reference element, or a
     wsse:KeyIdentifier element.


As I said in [1], I suggest we *not* close issue 428 with no action, but rather 
direct the editor to incorporate the language suggested by Thomas in his email 
message (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html), and 
change the status of the issue to be "pending" (I had suggested a status of 
"pending review", but that was apparently incorrect, the editor needs to make 
the change before attaining the latter status).

thanks,

JeffH


[3] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200508/msg00049.html

[4] Re: [wss] RE: [wss-comment] recursive Security Token References
     http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200509/msg00010.html